This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Biggest Mistakes Companies Make with Workers' Comp. Insurance Tracks


Biggest Mistakes Companies Make with Workers' Comp. Insurance


By Andrew Dearing, CIC, MWCA, Trailer Makers Insurance Josh Gurley, CIC, CWCA, Trailer Makers Insurance


Most business owners and managers purchase workers’ compensation in the wrong way. About 90 to 120 days before their policies expire, they put it out to bid and get quotes. Once in, they review the prices and usually select the policies with the lowest premiums.


While this may sound like a good business


approach, it’s not only the least effective way to control workers’ compensation insurance expenses, but it actually drives up the costs.


To understand why the bid-search method of purchasing workers’ compensation coverage is an ineffective way to reduce costs, it’s necessary to explode the commonly held misconceptions about this type of insurance.


Most important of all, insurance companies don’t pay for employee injuries, they merely finance them. Workers' compensation is not typical insurance. It is little more than a finance system in which the insurance company merely fronts the cost of employee injuries. Employers will pay back two to three dollars to the insurance company for every dollar the insurance company pays in claim costs. This is the same as borrowing money at rates of 100-200 percent.


Depending on the amount of the premium and their risk tolerance, workers’ comp. insurance buyers generally select between two types of policies. One is known as guaranteed cost or dividend plans. The other is known as loss sensitive plans, retrospective rating plans or large deductible plans.


As the name suggests, guaranteed cost policies set the price of the policy for its specified period. What it doesn’t say is that injury costs incurred during that policy period will be felt for three years into the future.


Even with a so-called guaranteed cost plan, employers pay for all employee injuries and then some through an increase in the experience modification factor. Loss sensitive plans illustrate this even more pointedly. Some companies on these plans


52 March/April 2016


literally write the checks for injured workers’ medical costs, lost wages, and associated expenses.


If an employer is on a dividend, retrospective rating, or large- deductible plan, the effect of the mod is compounded––the employer pays for the injuries and is faced with higher premium cost for having the losses. In effect, they are being charged twice for the losses.


This may not be fair, but that is the way it works. This is a clear and quantifiable fact.


Against this background, there is also a strange paradox occurring in the workers’ comp. system. Over the past ten years, 40 percent fewer employees were injured. In spite of this, total injury costs increased exponentially. In addition, injured employees have missed more time from work and their medical costs, expenses and settlements have been much higher.


So, why are injuries costing so much more if fewer employees are injured? Does this mean the medical conditions resulting from the injuries are much more severe than 10 years ago? The evidence suggests this is partly true. Studies, however, are exposing additional factors that are causing injury costs to spiral out of control. The solutions are to be found in how employers respond to the following questions:





Do you have a hiring process that reduces or eliminates “professional claimants,” and accepts only those who are physically and mentally fit for the job?





Are all injuries reported to the designated people in your organization within 24 hours of the occurrence?


• Do you have a performance agreement with your primary care physician that addresses critical cost reduction activities?


• Do you have a written step-by-step process on what to do when an injury occurs and someone to coordinate that process?


• Are 95 percent of your injured employees returned to work within three days with or without temporary restrictions and modifications to their job?


www.NATM.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108
Produced with Yudu - www.yudu.com